Sentences with phrase «conclusions about our changing climate»

Not exact matches

If you can then show that humans don't cause climate change, then only # 2 (and possibly # 4, which has the same conclusion) is left, and it means that we have no obligation to try and do anything about it.

Similar conclusions were reached about impacts of climate change on wheat in the UK, where climate change models are predicting warmer, wetter winters for the country.

This majority made it difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between other races and climate change, said McCright, because the Gallup survey sample size was so small.

«When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about,» he says.

«The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming,» the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007.

Station locations change and methods evolve, so the climate data center warns that comparing normals between different 30 - year periods may lead to «erroneous conclusions» about climate change.

Schultz, a professor of synoptic meteorology, and co-author Dr Vladimir Janković, a science historian specialising in weather and climate, say the short - term, large variability from year to year in high - impact weather makes it difficult, if not impossible, to draw conclusions about the correlation to longer - term climate change.

That's the conclusion of a 5 - year study, which found that when news organizations ran a number of stories on controversial topics like water quality and climate change in close succession, they significantly boosted public conversations about these topics — and even changed some people's minds.

By comparing several years of measurements, climate researchers and oceanographers can now draw conclusions about changes in sea level and ocean currents.

As for the paper's conclusion that removing atmospheric carbon is necessary in order to achieve the 2 ˚C target, climate scientist Richard Moss of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, says that's a nearly impossible goal «with what we know about today.»

«We can also draw conclusions about past atmospheric circulation patterns, with implications for future climate changes.

With no insight into how climate projections are judged, the public could take away from situations such as the IPCC's uncertain conclusion about Antarctica in 2007 that the problems of climate change are inconsequential or that scientists do not know enough to justify the effort (and possible expense) of a public - policy response, he said.

It marks the world's acceptance that climate change, driven by humans» greenhouse gas emissions, is about as close to a certainty as science can ever get — and that conclusion can not be covered up or waved away.

The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively short period of 13 months.

I had just been in a discussion of climate change on a messageboard where someone had triumphantly put up links to various blogs (including one that you noted here) drawing conclusions about the cause of the global warming here on earth on the basis of these recent measurements of Mars's south polar cap!

So there is a need to understand the full behavioural and ecological flexibility of the lemurs before reaching firm conclusions about their ability to survive climate change.»

Because this climate sensitivity is derived from empirical data on how Earth responded to past changes of boundary conditions, including atmospheric composition, our conclusions about limits on fossil fuel emissions can be regarded as largely independent of climate models.

«Although seas have risen and warmed, and the atmosphere now holds more moisture, we can't yet draw definitive conclusions about the influence of climate change on Hurricane Harvey.

In parallel to the Rio +20 gestation process, the UN Secretary - General and his senior advisors, after more than two years of wholehearted efforts to bring about a major global agreement on climate change, had come to the conclusion that climate change was part of a broader package of global sustainable development challenges, and could probably be better addressed in conjunction with the rest.

Based on the above conclusions, they consider that the future integrity of the property is highly at risk, taking into account the possible prospect of offshore oil exploitation, the uncertainty about the impact of invasive species, the already existing threats for which progress on the corrective measures is unclear and the globally increasing effects of climate change to coral reef systems, including the Belize Barrier Reef system.

I'm decidedly a believer in anthropogenic climate change, because even my meager experience of first and second year Physics, as a student of Chemistry and Physics, leads me to that logical conclusion after having read a bit about the subject from experts, like here at RC.

I can not find any contemporary reports of climate scientists condemning him for make long term conclusions about climate change based on a warming period of just 13 years.

The new research is a regional climate study of historical sea level pressures, winds and temperatures over the eastern Pacific Ocean and draws no conclusions about climate change on a global scale.

[UPDATE 3/6, 1 p.m.:] Isaac Held, a climate modeler at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., responded today with some caution about seeking relationships between the ocean and atmospheric changes around the tropics, and also drawing conclusions about their relationship to global warming.

It's hard to find fault with McIntyre's overarching conclusion about the report and the panel's Working Group 3 (WG3 below), which is tasked with charting possible responses to climate change: Read more...

After all, any conclusion about the pace of emissions cuts necessary to limit dangers from climate change is implicitly as much (or more) about economics as science.

I've long pointed out that anyone trumpeting a conclusion about greenhouse - driven climate change on the basis of a single paper should be treated with skepticism or outright suspicion.

If you care about this heated, consequential question, I encourage you to read Annan's full post, which includes a section on a kind of tribalism that takes hold in situations like this and that, he says, could affect the conclusions of the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the basics of greenhouse heating.

It draws no conclusions about the effect of AGW on hurricanes (neither «climate change» nor «global warming» occurs in the paper).

The fact that certain analytical conclusions about observed climate change, attribution to human causes, in particular the energy system and deforestation, projected greater climate change in the future, observed impacts of climate change on natural and human systems, and projected very disruptive consequences in the future given our current trajectory, is not due to «group think» but rather to a generally shared analysis based on evidence.

It's hard to find fault with McIntyre's overarching conclusion about the report and the panel's Working Group 3 (WG3 below), which is tasked with charting possible responses to climate change: The public and policy - makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future.

In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable.

According to a report at the time by Sovereignty International, Professor Robert Watson, the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was asked in a press briefing in 1997 about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic conseqClimate Change (IPCC), was asked in a press briefing in 1997 about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic conseqclimate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic consequences.

A broad array of leading climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change iChange (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate change ichange issues.

Based on my recent research into gender and climate change, in particular masculinity and the militarization of climate change (Nagel 2010), my conclusion in response to the question is, no, it doesn't matter much what Americans think about climate change.

The allegations are based on the false premise that ExxonMobil reached definitive conclusions about anthropogenic climate change before the world's experts and before the science itself had matured, and then withheld it from the broader scientific community.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiClimate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.»

This has led to doubts about the validity of IPCC conclusions, and to serious difficulty in making national and international policy regarding climate change.

In 1997 during the Kyoto Protocol Treaty negotiations in Japan, Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was asked about scientists who challenge United Nations conclusions that global warming was man - made.

But a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from observations spanning less than even a single season, let alone enough years to even establish the climate's normal state.

Although different theories of distributive justice would reach different conclusions about what «fairness» requires quantitatively, most of the positions taken by opponents of climate change policies fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny given the huge differences in emissions levels between high and low emitting nations and the enormity of global emissions reductions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

This statement is false and misleading, and is a classic example of one of the favorite tactics of climate change deniers: the use of short time periods to draw false conclusions about longer - term trends.

Uncertainty is intrinsic to complex systems like Earth's climate, but in the context of catastrophic climate change, this uncertainty is so severe that it is difficult to draw basic conclusions about how fat the fat tail is.

In the opinion piece, Lomborg links back to the Copenhagen Consensus Center's research results, which were conducted by an «Expert Panel of five world - class economists - including three recipients of the Nobel Prize;» their duty: «to form conclusions about which solution to climate change is the most promising.»

I have spent much of the past 2 years analyzing and re-constructing some of the basic studies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate Climate Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate cChange (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate climate changechange.

Using new topographic measurements and computer simulation at Potsdam University's Institute for Climatic Impact Research, the paper's authors, Matthias Mengel and Anders Levermann, have reached alarming conclusions about the effects in - Nature: Climate Change.

In 2008 physicist Joe Romm, writing under a headline that promised The cold truth about climate change, told Salon.com readers that the IPCC «relies on the peer - reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method...»

Writing in the Wall Street Journal last year, Koonin called for a «Red Team / Blue Team» process to debate and test assumptions and conclusions about climate change.

Personally, I doubt Dan's «central role,» conclusion, as I think that the tribalism evident among some of the different groups speaking for climate scientists is a reflection of a preexisting dynamic more than that those groups are responsible for creating the landscape where the discussion about climate change has become one more of who you are than what you know.